[rohc] Reveiw - draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-02.txt

Carl Knutsson <carl.knutsson@effnet.com> Wed, 01 November 2006 13:02 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfFk5-00032F-S8; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:02:53 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfFk2-00031h-VC for rohc@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:02:50 -0500
Received: from [194.237.235.30] (helo=effnet.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GfFjy-0007et-JE for rohc@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 08:02:50 -0500
Received: from [192.168.101.51] (c-ef7c71d5.04-205-6c756c1.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se [213.113.124.239]) (authenticated bits=0) by effnet.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id kA1CBfcF001727 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NOT); Wed, 1 Nov 2006 13:11:42 +0100
Message-ID: <45489C14.2030501@effnet.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:07:32 +0100
From: Carl Knutsson <carl.knutsson@effnet.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060809)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rohc@ietf.org
References: <E1GVZEH-0006gY-8w@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <E1GVZEH-0006gY-8w@stiedprstage1.ietf.org>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e8a67952aa972b528dd04570d58ad8fe
Cc: "Lars-Erik Jonsson (LU/EAB)" <lars-erik.jonsson@ericsson.com>
Subject: [rohc] Reveiw - draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-02.txt
X-BeenThere: rohc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Robust Header Compression <rohc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:rohc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc>, <mailto:rohc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: rohc-bounces@ietf.org

Hi L-E, all,

I been asked to review the framework draft.

My comments:

1. Introduction

"To improve and simplify the specification, the framework and the profiles parts
of RFC 3095 have been split into separate documents."

The sentence above could be rephrased without RFC 3095.

"To improve and simplify the specification, the framework and the profiles parts
have been split into separate documents."

We are splitting the new specification into two documents. This is a new
specification. The sentence above gives the impression that we have only split the
rfc 3095 into two new documents.

2.2. ROHC Terminology

Some of the definitions in the Terminology section are not used very frequently.

Context Repair mechanism - only used only in history part. "Repair
                           mechanism" is used. Maybe it should be
                           added in terminology.

CRC-8 validation - not used in document. (Could be used in section 5.4.3)

CRC verification - not used in document.

Error propagation - not used in this document.

Packet Flow - Not used in this document. "flow of packet" and "flow" is
              used. Include "flow" in the terminology?

Header Compression Profile - not used in document. "ROHC profile" and
                             "profile" is frequently used in the draft.

5.1.1. Contexts and Context Identifiers.

"..or when the CID gets associated from the reception of an IR (this does not
apply to the IR-DYN) with a different profile than the profile in the context."

IR and IR-DYN mentioned the first time (except for Abbreviation and Terminology
section). I suggest adding a reference to section 5.2.2.


5.2.2. Initialisation and Refresh (IR) Packet Types

last sentence last paragraph...

".., or unless the profile in the Profile field specifies otherwise"

could be rephrase to

".., or unless the profile indicated in the Profile field specifies otherwise"


regards,
/Calle


_______________________________________________
Rohc mailing list
Rohc@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rohc